User Profile: bonesiii

bonesiii

Member Since: October 14, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 19, 2014 at 3:30pm

    Hey. It goes good. Busy but good!

  • [1] October 17, 2014 at 11:56am

    There’s two angles to this Constitutionally.

    First, it can be interpreted as “public land = free religious exercise.” This is how I tend to interpret it, although there are other principles of decency that might come into play in some cases, of course. But barring those, under this interpretation, the answer is simple — what goes for us (Christians) goes for any other religious view, including atheism and satanism.

    Second, it can be interpreted as “public land, ruled by majority of the public”, since the majority of taxpayers essentially own the land (unlike owning private property owned by a satanist or an atheist). In that case the most common religious belief gets priority, with gradients for other very popular ones, and fringe groups like those would not qualify. This can be turned around too, but they have to actually build their popularity from the ground up by convincing people, rather than by taking advantage of celebrations of the public view to simply advertise. It appears the framers had a bit of both in mind in different situations; private owners displaying things on public land may be free if decent, while government-sanctioned things were Christian.

    Note: I only had time to read the first part of the article, and didn’t see actual confirmation that this is public land. If not, then it’s up to the landowners, but in a non-binding sense the principles -should- (but don’t have to be) used by landowners too.

  • October 17, 2014 at 11:46am

    Everybody knows Democrat rules are for the little people, not the elites.

  • [2] October 17, 2014 at 10:01am

    Sounds like he’s fallen for two of the common strawmen arguments; 1) that we’re anti-SCIENCE (we’re actually anti-BAD-science; we accept all SOUND science), and 2) that we just read “the Bible” all literally (no, we read the parts that all real scholars agree were meant to be literal, as literal, and the metaphors as metaphors etc.).

    Sorry sir, it’s not blasphemous to believe God over YOU.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 10, 2014 at 3:04pm

    That assumes we ever thought any different… I’ve always thought some adults oddly “misunderestimate” kids. And then they also seem to assume everybody else thinks what they do. *rolls eyes*

  • October 8, 2014 at 2:35pm

    Typocorrect: it’s just more evidence

    (lol at weird negation typo)

  • October 8, 2014 at 2:11pm

    If you have a “culture, tradition, or way of life” that has elements that cannot abide with Christianity, then IMO Christianity has purified and improved those things. There are tons of cultural things that may go with Christianity, but any that don’t (assuming you understand Christianity in its proper context, not twist bits out of context etc.), are not good, because the omniscient God revealed to us what is and isn’t good.

    So that logic isn’t exactly great. That’s like if I said that I opened a dictionary and found out that my misconception of what a word meant was wrong, and instead of being glad I gained more useful knowledge, hating the dictionary for showing me I should change.

    But that kind of thinking is sadly common in the world, and if you think about it isn’t just more evidence that worldiness is illogical and wrong.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 8:53pm

    Besides, your lack of substantive reply actually makes me think you DO respect the logic; otherwise why not debunk it. If it’s so easy to do, just do it. Your approach makes it seem like you’re baffled as to how to salvage your view so you just resort to insults.

    But that’s all okay. You’re “lost”, and that’s the kind of behavior we expect. It’s part of our argument, in fact. I used to HAVE to react that way when I was lost. Only when I accepted Yeshua and started really listening to the Spirit’s guidance did this begin to stop having a power over me. This is one of the evidences that our view is true, in fact.

    And while it’s sad for you that you are not at least consciously respecting my view (assuming you’re not lying :P), that’s kind of okay too.

    This is the kind of thing that probably has to get worse before it gets better. You’ve been deeply indoctrinated in an illogical, usually intentionally false view, on subject after subject. No short answer can shake you out of that illusion, since there are so many false views that are a part of it, and all need sound answers to disillusion you (if you will). The closest thing I can give you is that you need to really take seriously studying sound logic to know HOW to tell what is true and then REALLY start critically analyzing what you’ve been taught to believe, the same way I did about the Bible and it passed the test.

    Don’t stop at the surface; dig deep, and be FAIR. :)

  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 8:47pm

    “My respect for you drops lower with every post you write.”

    You know, I was going to let this one slide, but in hindsight, something needs said here.

    Like your other things, this can work both ways, but I don’t just mean that theoretically here. MY respect for the so-called “reasonable” atheists has likewise gone way down the more I have researched what you folks actually think, and see the arguments you try to get away with.

    I cannot respect an interpretive method that demands that you divorce a snippet from all its biblical and historical context in order to twist it to support a “thug God” argument.

    I cannot respect a strategy that takes things out of context freely like this when it suits your side, but at the slightest possible-to-interpret hint of a creationist doing something like that, those on your side will in lock-step scream “quote mining!” (Isn’t it quote mining when you do it too?)

    I can’t respect a philosophy that assures us it’s all about “reason” but never seems to actually involve except in name only; when push comes to shove most of you resort to fallacies, name-calling (unfortunately my side isn’t much better at that one, but at least we have actual substance in addition!), and emotionalism.

    And poetic response aside (:P), I don’t even buy that you yourself respect your kind of approach. I think deep down you know it’s wrong, but pride base makes you unable to admit it. :(

  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 8:19pm

    Typocorrect: who is applying

    For example, how about slavery? What do you think the Bible teaches that God thinks about slavery?

    Or this example we were talking about with the sticks. How is this “perverted morals”? Consider, as I said, that the person in question is knowingly breaking one of the ritual purity laws (symbolic choices to abstain from certain things to signify loyalty) that they agreed to under a covenant, likely to “in your face” show that they are loyal to some other supposed deity (like the gods of Egypt or the Golden Calf or the like, certainly not at all a stretch for that generation given past behavior!). Consider also that many in this generation had already tried to murder the godly at the incident at the first attempted entry into the Promised Land (resulting in the 40 years’ wandering punishment), so this symbolic act of defiance likely was meant to threaten another attempt at unjust violence.

    In that context, what other response could there be? (And there were other factors too, mentioned in the Miller link, like that disobedience of the work rule had apparently happened already and had gone unpunished in grace.)

    If you tear it completely out of all that context and imagine some innocent accidentally plucking up some wood because he was cold and forgot to collect double the day before… yeah, this would be bad, but that is NOT what happened in context, and if it had, judges could forgive it.

  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 8:11pm

    Otherwise, I can just throw the same arguments back at you, since they’re fallacious and thus two-way; what if you’re just making excuses? And what if it is you who is apply bad morals (at least to the task of interpretation :P)?

    It seems like you just don’t want to admit that you were wrong, even though it was shown why you were…

  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 8:10pm

    As I often point out, anybody on any side can laugh at the other; in fact we would expect that. Anybody indoctrinated in a false view (or believing a true one; this works either way, but shows the argument to be therefore unreliable and fallacious) will tend to view ideas matching their own as acceptable and ideas more different from their own will tend to produce laughter. We laugh at you guys, you laugh at us — neither is helpful in figuring out what’s actually TRUE. For that you need sound support. :)

    Also, just claiming that somebody else’s views are WORTHY of ridicule doesn’t show that they are; that’s just a copout. Soundly explain where you think the flaws are, or if you deem some of my arguments sound, simply have the guts to admit that they at least seem to be, for the moment. :)

    “All you’re trying (and failing at) is making excuses”

    That would have to be your view if you disagree, but you need to show sound support for the claim. On what basis? Pick a subject and show how you understand it better and how that actually changes things so that I am wrong. As it is, this is just elephant hurling.

    “This also comes across as you sharing the same perverted sense of morals that the big thug Yahweh does.”

    Sorry but genuine, self-less love is not perverted. :)

    But put your “money” (not literally :P) where your mouth is; explain WHY I am wrong.

  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 8:01pm

    Actually, fom, I’ve answered that many times. I forget if it was to you, but I answered it recently. I don’t often go over it because quite frankly it’s obvious to anybody who chooses to use their brains. :P If I say “the sun will come up tomorrow,” that’s fakeable. Far more specific events get less fakeable, etc. Just look into them all on your own time and judge for yourself.

    A far more useful answer would be for you to show just how exactly all of them WOULD be fakeable.

    The rest of your responses are nothing but ad hominem fallacies.

  • October 7, 2014 at 7:58pm

    Your claim is falsified by the unfakeable prophecies in the Bible, sorry. That shows that it really is inspired by the beyond-time infinite (omniscient) God.

  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 7:57pm

    “The second way, they could have gone the crazy way which they did. Reanimated rock golems who are the souls of the fallen angels, mentally insane Noah, etc.

    -The third way(my preferred way), would have been to follow the book of Enoch.
    Which would have included stuff like the fallen angels teaching humans how to do certain things (I.E., smith tools/weapons, use plants for medicine, astrology, enchanting). Also would have fallen angels that bred with the daughters of men, which in turn produced giants (or men of renown, I believe it also says).
    Now giants were in Genesis, but it’s only in a few verses I believe… the book of Enoch has a little bit more to say about giants.”

    Main reason I felt like replying to this is that “giants” are not necessarily mentioned in Genesis. “Nefilym” (often spelled Nephilim) literally means “fallen ones”, not giants. There is later evidence that may associate the word with giants, but also evidence against that interpretation (such as that some of it comes from the lying spies of Numbers who had motive to exaggerate), so I personally think it should be avoided.

    Also, IMO given that the Book of Enoch is almost certainly a more modern forgery and not the actual writings of the real Enoch, it shouldn’t be used.

    And quote the “second option” just to say that admittedly the rock-golem thing was cool. Sounds silly (IS silly), and is hopelessly antibiblical, but yeah. So… there’s that…

  • October 7, 2014 at 7:43pm

    Basically, given that the land had just come out of water a few days before this, a mist from the ground is the logical feature to see for a little while (that’s what stuff that’s very wet tends to do after all), but the normal water cycle would start up soon after this, and we would expect to see rain for all those years before the Flood.

    “Re: lifespan – Genesis 6:3″

    I’m also not going to put words in your mouth, but from the word “lifespan” there, it sounds like you are trying to argue that this verse definitely refers to a future cap on lifespans:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A3&version=ESV

    But there is the possibility, as it seems to mean on a face-value reading, that the warning of the Flood came 120 years before it came. I forget off the top of my head if there is definite proof one way or the other, but it really isn’t relevant here. Either way, the warning did come some time before the Flood, and lifespans did go down (and would likely go down regardless of what caused the rain due to genetic effects anyways).

    Not sure if you have a point in the rest of that post or are just posting interesting facts. :) Likewise, your second post does not seem to have relevance to what we were discussing. I can only guess that you missed this part of my post or are not aware of what it refers to in genetics:

    “The decay was probably sped up due to the population bottleneck effect of the Ark/Flood.”

    :)

  • October 7, 2014 at 7:42pm

    It says the waters below and the waters above were separated by an ‘expanse.’ The term for this is ambiguous, and could just as easily refer to the expanse of space (plus the atmosphere at the lowest point). This appears to be verified by Humphreys’ successful magnetic field predictions of other planets based on the idea, implied in 2 Peter 3, that the heavenly bodies were made out of the water that was separated from the Earth on Day 2. That water was not, thus, left as a canopy above the Earth to draw upon in the Flood (and that still would have the recession problem), or at least there’s no biblical evidence for it. Another verse also cites waters still above the heavens post-Flood.

    “Re: Rain – Genesis 2:5&6″

    Not 100% sure why you put this here, but it does sound like what I mentioned here:

    “Some also point to the verse during Day 6 that it hadn’t yet rained, but there were over a thousand years after that during which it could (ask if curious for more on that).”

    This was in response to the common usage of that ref to support a “no rain before Flood” view. Here’s that ref:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A5-6&version=ESV

    Are you asking for more? [I'll sum it up in the next post in case you are.]

  • October 7, 2014 at 7:41pm

    “The runaway subduction theory by John Baumgardner would not necessarily replace the vapor canopy model. For you see, both can be true at the same time, for the same event.”

    See this part of my original post:

    “simulations of the vapor canopy model have not upheld it”

    While what you’re saying is true, it’s also irrelevant since we have no positive evidence for the canopy model, while we have tons of it for runaway subduction and that explains the same thing; the rain. There’s no reason to prop up the canopy model just because it was a popular idea of the past; objectively it is not a likely answer.

    “Although we do not have a clear picture in the Bible of how the land mass was before the flood, the sky, technology, vegetation, etc., it is apparent that after the great flood that peoples lifespan was greatly reduced (see below).”

    Yes, but this is not likely directly related to climate, as today victims of progeria live in the same environment but suffer a roughly one-tenth decrease in lifespan, just as the Post-Flood people suffered a roughly one-tenth decrease after the thousand-max-average from before the Global Flood. There are plenty of genetic and diet factors that could lead to this (although the magnetic field weakening could certianly play a small role too).

    “Further, the Bible does say that the waters were divided by air (see Genesis 1:6-10).”

    Not quite.

  • October 7, 2014 at 7:20pm

    “are you saying a ‘donation based’ tax system would increase tax revenues”

    Since there are multiple possible results under a donation system, there’s no way to give a single answer to this, just like some non-profits succeed and others fail. The idea is rather that government would be forced to actually do what the people want rather than oppress us if they want us to donate (significant amounts).

    ‘Twill never happen, but we can dream. :P

  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 11:54am

    Okay, I looked it over again, and I’m guessing it is “non-Christians do good things too”-ism, which is not at all a reasonable answer to what you quoted, since that argument doesn’t say that good things aren’t done, just that they are (in the logic of any system unmoored to the infinite, self-consistent, and most importantly omniscient God who has to exist in the causality proof) done for selfish motivations. But how do you know that some Buddhists aren’t mooring their morality to God in some confused sense, too?

    According to the causality proof there are two options, basically — one, being in tune with, and rewarded by, the infinite God, which according to his Word (proven to be by the unfakeable prophecies, you know the drill if you follow my posts for a long time) means self-lessness. Or two, holding something that God knows is, all-things considered, wrong, in higher priority over love; etc. and denying God so that you aren’t rewarded with eternal perfect life. By “remember”, this is what I was alluding to (in part; there’s much more to it); don’t insult what you (obviously) don’t understand.

    This is assuming I’ve interpreted your implied reasoning in the final paragraph correctly. Pardon if not. :)

123 To page: Go